Petition to S.C.S for a SDK - Page 7

Linton · 12-12-07, 06:08 PM

I wonder what the development costs were and how many have been sold?The Perry/P3 should have had a few different operating countries.It was basically a US/Russian oriented game.Perhaps more discussion with the community would have helped before they spent any $$$.I certainly do not remember any public discussion.

UglyMowgli · 12-13-07, 01:55 AM

What we need for immediate release is a standalone replay software or the format of the files so we can make a piece of sotfware by ourself.
I ask some months ago (April 2007) if SCS can release the format of the replay and I am still waiting an answer from Friyng Tiger (" I'll ask a coder and see what the deal is with the replay format. I have no clue if it's proprietary or not.").
I think if they can't give us the file format of the replay (a very strategic info

) they never make a SDK.

XabbaRus · 12-13-07, 03:33 AM

SCS has said many times in the past that and SDK won't be made available and given the lack of response from SCS here and at their own forum DW is no longer of interest to them. Therefore I think this thread is redundant now. Dr Sid is moving along with his sim which promises to be more in depth in the areas people have thought are limited in DW.

Sea Demon · 12-15-07, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Dr Sid is moving along with his sim which promises to be more in depth in the areas people have thought are limited in DW.

OK, I'm officially intrigued by this statement. What sim? Doc Sid......can you give us some more insight into your plans? I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about your planned sim and I'd like to know more about it.

Sea Demon · 12-15-07, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

given the lack of response from SCS here and at their own forum DW is no longer of interest to them.

Are you totally sure about that? I certainly hope that's not the case. I'm still playing DW quite regularly and I'm still very much interested...so that would be quite disheartening if true.

Zachstar · 12-16-07, 02:53 AM

When one's game is either failing and/or old then encouraging deep mods with a SDK or even the engine source code is one of the old tricks of the gaming industry.

Quake was a engine that went down in history as the most modified project in history. Its source code is still being tweaked and used today. It gave birth to Half life and its mods as well as its own rich modding community.

So DW diddnt sell big bucks... So what? Do you want your biggest public product to meet it's demise simply because you think there are bigger fish elseware?

I do not see what your big problem with custom playable craft are when you no longer support the engine. You no longer have any interest in making pay addons yet you want to deny a potentally great way to add in extra trickle funds?

Sad really

OneShot · 12-16-07, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

When one's game is either failing and/or old then encouraging deep mods with a SDK or even the engine source code is one of the old tricks of the gaming industry.

Quake was a engine that went down in history as the most modified project in history. Its source code is still being tweaked and used today. It gave birth to Half life and its mods as well as its own rich modding community.

So DW diddnt sell big bucks... So what? Do you want your biggest public product to meet it's demise simply because you think there are bigger fish elseware?

I do not see what your big problem with custom playable craft are when you no longer support the engine. You no longer have any interest in making pay addons yet you want to deny a potentally great way to add in extra trickle funds?

Sad really

I suppose they are making still big bucks off DW ... tho not the freely available version of DW but the Government one which they sold to the DoD (amongst others).

So don't expect a SDK or something similar because they would shoot themselves in the foot by releasing such tools (their "other" customers would rightly think ... why pay huge fees when we can do all modifications ourselves).

So my guess ... DW is a success and still running, just not on the Retail market (i.e. where we can buy it).

Zachstar · 12-16-07, 06:53 AM

I can hardly believe that the .gov is having to rely on SCS to provide them with new "playables". Matter of fact I refuse to believe this is the case because the critical info on these craft are highly classified.

So obviously DW for the .gov is a stripped down DW without the obviously wrong public domain info. This version is obviously designed for the agents in the navy to plug in the real numbers and run their simulations in secret.

I could hardly think the gov will suddenly find the public version. (Which obviously has added realism breakers so that the bad guys wont be able to suddenly use it anymore than SH3) More attractive unless they want versions they can send home with the cadets for practice. Again rather pointless cause SCS gets the money anyway.

XabbaRus · 12-16-07, 07:27 AM

SCS is a govt. contractor, the DW we have from what I understand is the same as the Dod version but we haven't been furnished with details on that and an SDK would allow us to find them out.

So like I said is it worth having this thread. Gor ead the official SCS forum adn you will see there has been hardly any comment by SCS for the past 6 months.

Zachstar · 12-16-07, 08:10 AM

Yes this thread is worth it as it is a public call.

goldorak · 12-16-07, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Yes this thread is worth it as it is a public call.

Ok, but if no one is listening ?
Are we going to shout in the desert for the next 3 years ?

The best thing to do is follow Xabbarus advice, and concentrate as a comunity on the effort Dr Sid is doing. The naval equivalent to Orbiter. Now it doesn't sound to bad does it ? :p

I still play DW and have lots of fun, but its a dead end as a game without modding potential.

Dr.Sid · 12-16-07, 12:23 PM

I guess this thread showed what the community wants. I think we won't get SDK, but I clicked 'yes' too. You never know. We have a nice 85% score, and as such the message is clear. We also know that SCS guy knows about this. So there is not much point in this discussion any more, except bumping it time to time so SCS knows we STILL want anything new.
I think we can do both. Work on community projects and praise for new commercial content.
I'll do what I do anyway .. even if SCS gave us SDK and 3 new games. And it won't by playable in multiplayer any much soon, so don't throw DW away. There is new LWAMI comming. And mission design too gets better and better. DW still is the best we have.

JM850 · 01-01-08, 12:37 PM

It would be nice, but wont happen.

View Poll Results: SDK or No SDK?
Yes	105	86.07%
No	17	13.93%
Voters: 122. You may not vote on this poll

12-12-07, 06:08 PM	#91
Linton Sea Lord Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,898 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I wonder what the development costs were and how many have been sold?The Perry/P3 should have had a few different operating countries.It was basically a US/Russian oriented game.Perhaps more discussion with the community would have helped before they spent any $$$.I certainly do not remember any public discussion. __________________ http://lintonsview.blogspot.com/

12-13-07, 01:55 AM	#92
UglyMowgli Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 784 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	What we need for immediate release is a standalone replay software or the format of the files so we can make a piece of sotfware by ourself. I ask some months ago (April 2007) if SCS can release the format of the replay and I am still waiting an answer from Friyng Tiger (" I'll ask a coder and see what the deal is with the replay format. I have no clue if it's proprietary or not."). I think if they can't give us the file format of the replay (a very strategic info) they never make a SDK. __________________ Modern Naval Warfare Community Manager

12-13-07, 03:33 AM	#93
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	SCS has said many times in the past that and SDK won't be made available and given the lack of response from SCS here and at their own forum DW is no longer of interest to them. Therefore I think this thread is redundant now. Dr Sid is moving along with his sim which promises to be more in depth in the areas people have thought are limited in DW. __________________

12-16-07, 02:53 AM	#96
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	When one's game is either failing and/or old then encouraging deep mods with a SDK or even the engine source code is one of the old tricks of the gaming industry. Quake was a engine that went down in history as the most modified project in history. Its source code is still being tweaked and used today. It gave birth to Half life and its mods as well as its own rich modding community. So DW diddnt sell big bucks... So what? Do you want your biggest public product to meet it's demise simply because you think there are bigger fish elseware? I do not see what your big problem with custom playable craft are when you no longer support the engine. You no longer have any interest in making pay addons yet you want to deny a potentally great way to add in extra trickle funds? Sad really __________________

12-16-07, 06:53 AM	#98
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	I can hardly believe that the .gov is having to rely on SCS to provide them with new "playables". Matter of fact I refuse to believe this is the case because the critical info on these craft are highly classified. So obviously DW for the .gov is a stripped down DW without the obviously wrong public domain info. This version is obviously designed for the agents in the navy to plug in the real numbers and run their simulations in secret. I could hardly think the gov will suddenly find the public version. (Which obviously has added realism breakers so that the bad guys wont be able to suddenly use it anymore than SH3) More attractive unless they want versions they can send home with the cadets for practice. Again rather pointless cause SCS gets the money anyway. __________________

12-16-07, 07:27 AM	#99
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	SCS is a govt. contractor, the DW we have from what I understand is the same as the Dod version but we haven't been furnished with details on that and an SDK would allow us to find them out. So like I said is it worth having this thread. Gor ead the official SCS forum adn you will see there has been hardly any comment by SCS for the past 6 months. __________________

12-16-07, 08:10 AM	#100
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Yes this thread is worth it as it is a public call. __________________

12-16-07, 12:23 PM	#102
Dr.Sid The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I guess this thread showed what the community wants. I think we won't get SDK, but I clicked 'yes' too. You never know. We have a nice 85% score, and as such the message is clear. We also know that SCS guy knows about this. So there is not much point in this discussion any more, except bumping it time to time so SCS knows we STILL want anything new. I think we can do both. Work on community projects and praise for new commercial content. I'll do what I do anyway .. even if SCS gave us SDK and 3 new games. And it won't by playable in multiplayer any much soon, so don't throw DW away. There is new LWAMI comming. And mission design too gets better and better. DW still is the best we have.

01-01-08, 12:37 PM	#103
JM850 Swabbie Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 8 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	It would be nice, but wont happen.